The data from Denmark is just a repeat of the Myres' data, but that from Norway is new to this paper. Thanks very much for pointing that out. I find it so interesting that I'll start a new thread on it. Is there anyway of determining the size of their Norway sample?

It's 138 and as you say Busby's own sample to supplement Myres. They sampled about 60 additional sites. If you can get to open the Excel file, they have listed all the STRs, around 2,200.

"Here, we have confirmed with the broadest analysis todate that the spatial distribution of Y chromosome haplogroupM269 can be split by R-S127 into Europeanand western Eurasian lineages. Contrary to the resultsof Balaresque, we see no relationship between diversityand longitude (figure 2) for R-M269. The presence oftwo sets of populations in the Balaresque paper appearsto be causal to the observed relationship: the underestimateddiversity of the Irish population and the inclusionof the Turkish chromosomes, the majority of whichpotentially belong to the non-European cladeR-M269(xS127). When these elements are properlytaken into account, jointly or independently, the correlationno longer exists. This correlation is the central tenet to the hypothesis that R-M269 was spread with expanding Neolithic farmers."

If Busby et al indeed found that there was no east-to-west variance cline in the whole M269 set, why say that removing the Turkish sample "removes the significant correlation" and that "[t]hese populations [i.e., the Turkish] are therefore intrinsic to the significant correlation"?

Why say that if they indeed found no correlation with the Turks included?

And why say, "The presence of two sets of populations [i.e., both the S127 and M269xS127 sets] in the Balaresque paper appears to be causal to the observed relationship" if in fact there is no observed relationship?

If I misunderstood this paper, and it is as straightforward and devastating as you seem to be saying, then these passages are the reason I misunderstood. But it sure sounds like they had to tinker with Balaresque's datasets a bit, mainly by excluding the M269xS127 haplotypes, in order to "remove the significant correlation" and "the observed relationship".

Why bother with that if an analysis of the whole set of M269 haplotypes had already demonstrated that there is no east-to-west decrease in variance?

Honestly, maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like Busby et al did, in fact, find an increase in variance in M269 as a whole as one heads east and had to remove the M269xS127 haplotypes in order to eliminate it. (I must confess, however, that those "bootstrap variance" graphs in Figure 2 are Greek to me, as I am sure they are to most of us here.)

I guess I did misunderstand the paper, if in fact they measured the variance of M269 as a whole, did not exclude R-M269xS127, and found no increase in variance as one heads east. Apparently I am not the only one here who misunderstood it. The passages I quoted above, however, tend to convince me that I did not misunderstand the paper at all.

Where does the paper say the Irish haplotypes had greater variance than the Turkish haplotypes? I missed that. Or did they mean just the Turkish S127 haplotypes?

What baffles me about this paper, as a layman, is that everything I have seen to date, not just Balaresque, has concluded that M269 variance increases as one heads east across Europe into western Asia. That includes Vince Vizachero's fairly recent calculations. Not only that, but it is pretty plain that the SNP trail leads from east to west, as well.

....What baffles me about this paper, as a layman, is that everything I have seen to date, not just Balaresque, has concluded that M269 variance increases as one heads east across Europe into western Asia. That includes Vince Vizachero's fairly recent calculations. Not only that, but it is pretty plain that the SNP trail leads from east to west, as well.

I'm okay with whatever the answer is regarding R-M269's direction and timeframe of expansion and think it is worthwhile to consider all viewpoints and accept whatever is most probable. In fact, it felt good to be a tall, dark, artistic Cro-Magnon man.

I think there are a couple of key points to evaluate and some challenges. The challenges include 1) identifying the best STR set and appropriate mutation rates to use, 2) breaking up the asterisk paragroups further, particularly R-L11*, R-L23*, etc. and 3) low sample sizes of deep clade tested long haplotypes from Central Europe to West Asia.

The key points to evaluate are STR variance and SNP diversity against the SNP based phylogeny. If R-L11*, and probably more importantly R-L23xL11, appear to be dominated by a few "eastern" subclades and those subclades have low STR variance then I think the argument for a central European origin for R-L23 is good. This would follow with a concept along the ht35 idea where ht15 types expanded west while ht35 expanded east.

However, what I can see so far of L11*, anyway, I don't think L11* is just a few subclades. I tried to assign the 47 long haplotypes I've found to clusters. I could assign 12 of the 47 to 4 different clusters that had potential off-modal STR signatures. These probably should be called deep ancestral varieties, though, as they are not generally of the genealogical timeframe. I checked the GD's of the rest of the R-L11* (the non-clustered ones) and found the closest GD's over 67 to others in the group were in the upper teens (17, 18 seemed to about the norm but sometimes up to 21,22 or down to 15,16.) That would be for the closest individual, the furthest individual from each of the non-clustered folks would usually be 30 or just over 30. It looks like a lot of small subclades to me are in R-L11* so finding a place with a lot of R-L11* folks would be helpful in determining origin.

Probably, R-L23* is more important as the to be determined R-L11* hot spot appears to sit at the foot of the great expansion in Europe with its sons P312 and U106 near by. BTW, the variance numbers I calculated for R-L11* are about 5 to 20% greater than P312's. For all of the trashing of STR variance, it still seems to produce usable information.

The reason I say R-L23* is probably most important is that R-L11 could really be based out of the core of Europe. However, by the time we travel the bridge on R-L23xL11 back to the R-L23 MRCA we are very likely to be in some place like SW Asia or the Caucasus. So it would be really important to determine if R-L23xL11 was just a couple of subclades that were "eastern" or if they were a large number of unclusterable folks. If there are many diverse subclades in R-L23xL11 then you have high haplogroup diversity and a likely expansion point.

Perhaps Busby has a strong point in that R-L11 is about the same diversity all across Europe and therefore may be truly of European origin. I don't think anyone is saying that couldn't be true. However, as you move up the R1b phylogenetic tree from L11 you are going to run into the inevitable - the origins of R-M269 and finally R-M343.

Does anyone think R1b-M73 got to Anatolia, the Caucasus, the Urals and Pakistan from Europe?Does anyone think R1b-V88 got to Sub-Sahara Africa from Europe?

He doesn't think it is likely as, if this was the case, its dominance in europe could only be explained by a replacement of the early neolithic farmers. However, he doesn't appear to be aware of the population crash at the end of the LBK reported by Shennan and Edinborough. The crash which affected several parts of northern europe reduced the populations to their low mesolithic levels and remained at these low levels for nearly 1000 years.

bestauthun

Well, they in fact cite Bucquet and de Miguel demographic model for to the second wave of Neolithic regional centers to explain the regional pattern of S-127 subclades, however they fail to see that it fits equally a model of postNeolithic replacement of population.

"Here, we have confirmed with the broadest analysis todate that the spatial distribution of Y chromosome haplogroupM269 can be split by R-S127 into Europeanand western Eurasian lineages. Contrary to the resultsof Balaresque, we see no relationship between diversityand longitude (figure 2) for R-M269. The presence oftwo sets of populations in the Balaresque paper appearsto be causal to the observed relationship: the underestimateddiversity of the Irish population and the inclusionof the Turkish chromosomes, the majority of whichpotentially belong to the non-European cladeR-M269(xS127). When these elements are properlytaken into account, jointly or independently, the correlationno longer exists. This correlation is the central tenet to the hypothesis that R-M269 was spread with expanding Neolithic farmers."

Because they are talking about two completely different sets, they showed that in their set (A combination of new samples+Myres et al(2010) which does have Anatolian populations in it and can be seen in Figure S1 of the supplementary table) there is no correlation from East to West for R1b-M269, which is what we observed in Figure 2a). This figure is the most similar, in terms of analysis, to what Balaresque et al(2009) did, yet in their samples there isn’t any observable East-West correlation. Then on figure-2b) he shows the variance of R1b-M269(xS127), and this map showed that the highest variance occurs in Central Europe, if you look at the frequency map, Western Europe has barely nothing, so it wasn’t even included in the variance calculation. Now the next thing they(Busby et al(2011)) did, was to do a re-analysis of Balaresque et al(2009), and that is what you quoted above. But the analysis was done on the supplementary info, not on the main page of the study.

Quote from: Busby et al(2011)

"The Balaresque dataset presents genotype data only to the resolution of SNP R-M269. Our results show that the vast majority of R-M269 samples in Anatolia, approximately 90 per cent, belong to the R-M269(xS127) sub-haplogroup. Removing these Turkish populations from the Balaresque data and repeating the regression removes the significant correlation (R2 ¼ 0.23, p ¼ 0.09; details in the electronic supplementary material and figure S2). These populations are therefore intrinsic to the significant correlation.

So basically what they did, was a re-analysis of Balaresque et al(2009) data with and without the Turkish population, those analysis are shown in Figure-S2, they also included a different Irish sample, which turned out to have a median variance of 0.35, which in turn, completely destroyed the high variance of the Turkish sample.(See Figure-S2 D).

If Busby et al indeed found that there was no east-to-west variance cline in the whole M269 set, why say that removing the Turkish sample "removes the significant correlation" and that "[t]hese populations [i.e., the Turkish] are therefore intrinsic to the significant correlation"?

Why say that if they indeed found no correlation with the Turks included?

They are saying that once the Anatolian population sets are removed from the Balaresque et al(2009) set there isn’t any longer an East-West, so this argument tackles more the whole “Mutation arising in a surf-wave theory”. Because once the Anatolian populations are removed from Balaresque et al(2009), the European populations do not show any East-West gradient. Nonetheless, when they change the Balaresque et al(2009) Irish sample for a new one, it turned out that the new Irish sample with variance 0.35 changed the whole dynamics of the gradient, causing an East-West dichotomy(With both IR and TK3 now having the highest variance). Now like I said before, this is an analysis done on the Balaresque et al(2009) dataset, it has nothing to do with what is shown in Figure-2b), which was an analysis done on the variance of Busby et al(2011) samples and Myres et al(2010) samples.

And why say, "The presence of two sets of populations [i.e., both the S127 and M269xS127 sets] in the Balaresque paper appears to be causal to the observed relationship" if in fact there is no observed relationship?

If I misunderstood this paper, and it is as straightforward and devastating as you seem to be saying, then these passages are the reason I misunderstood. But it sure sounds like they had to tinker with Balaresque's datasets a bit, mainly by excluding the M269xS127 haplotypes, in order to "remove the significant correlation" and "the observed relationship".

Again removing the Anatolian samples from Balaresque et al(2009) was just one analysis(To test intra-European variance) done on the supplementary info. Another analysis was the inclusion of an Irish sample that had a variance of 0.35, which turned out to be higher than that of the three Anatolian populations from Balaresque et al(2009). So there isn’t just one thing that seems to conflict with Balaresque et al(2009) but two:

1- A new data set(Busby+Myres) showing no East-West gradient in terms of variance for R1b-M269(xS127), or R1b-M269 in general.2- The fact that re-analyzing the Balaresque et al(2009) with both removal of Anatolian samples, and change of Irish sample removed the East-West gradient.

Why bother with that if an analysis of the whole set of M269 haplotypes had already demonstrated that there is no east-to-west decrease in variance?

Because had they not re-analyzed Balaresque et al(2009) then you would have their dataset vs. Balaresque et al(2009) dataset, and there is no way they could say that Balaresque et al(2009) data set is invalidated. Instead they did that re-analysis of the other set.

Where does the paper say the Irish haplotypes had greater variance than the Turkish haplotypes? I missed that. Or did they mean just the Turkish S127 haplotypes?

Look in the supplementary info pdf, under the section titled: “Re-analysis of the Balaresque dataset”, then look at the sub-section titled: “Testing the variance calculations from the Irish population”. They used all the haplogroups present in R1b-M269, because this was a re-analysis of Balaresque et al(2009) which did not type in any downstream SNPs.

What baffles me about this paper, as a layman, is that everything I have seen to date, not just Balaresque, has concluded that M269 variance increases as one heads east across Europe into western Asia. That includes Vince Vizachero's fairly recent calculations. Not only that, but it is pretty plain that the SNP trail leads from east to west, as well.

I think the situation is far more complicated than that(i.e. There are more possibilities than Magdalenian expansion from FC Refuge, or Neolithic expansion from Anatolia, or Bronze Age expansion from the Caucasus, and hopefully they would be taken into account soon). Certainly ancient DNA isn’t helping out much either, it is better to look at variance calculations in terms of basal vs. downstream haplogroups (i.e. Variance for R1b-M269(xS127), variance for R1b-S116, variance for R1b-U106). Let’s hope in the future aDNA would help us out with this puzzle, in any case, I look forward to Otzi the Iceman Y-DNA Haplogroup.

PS: I don’t know what’s going on, but this is the third account I have to create to be able to log in, everytime I have created an account(JeanLohizun, JeanL and now JeanLo) I keep getting this message: “Unable to send a message, please contact the administrator”Then whenever I log out and I try to log back in, it doesn’t let me, because I was never asked to set up a password in the first place. Then when I ask it to send me a password change link to my email, it never does it.

Well, they in fact cite Bucquet and de Miguel demographic model for to the second wave of Neolithic regional centers to explain the regional pattern of S-127 subclades, however they fail to see that it fits equally a model of postNeolithic replacement of population.

Yes, I saw that but they appear to have difficulty, understandably, reconciling it with an existing population in situ. Shennan's curves, if correct, would provide an explanation:

PS: I don’t know what’s going on, but this is the third account I have to create to be able to log in, everytime I have created an account(JeanLohizun, JeanL and now JeanLo) I keep getting this message: “Unable to send a message, please contact the administrator”Then whenever I log out and I try to log back in, it doesn’t let me, because I was never asked to set up a password in the first place. Then when I ask it to send me a password change link to my email, it never does it.

I sent Terry (the site owner) an email about your login problems. Hopefully, he'll have the problem fixed soon.

I notice that, while the total S145 (L21) figure is fairly high (8%), a sizable chunk of that is M222 (1.4% of the y-dna total, about 18% of the L21 total). That makes me think that perhaps the notion that much of the L21 in Norway is the product of Viking Period slave trade might be correct. I am really reluctant to admit that, and admitting it won't make me any friends, that's for sure.

But the presence of British Isles-specific L21 subclades in Norway, like M222, certainly weakens the argument that L21 predates the Viking Period there. Besides that, we have one or two (I can't remember whether it's one or two) Norwegians in our project who are pretty close matches to the Scots Modal, and I believe there is at least one Norwegian who is L159.2+, which defines a subclade that is also otherwise pretty Isles-localized.

If Busby's sample is representative, then U152 is pretty anemic in Norway, and could also very likely be attributed to the Viking slave trade, since U152 is much more common in the British Isles than it is in Norway.

The situation with L21 in Scandinavia has always been different in that the variance is much lower than say France. However, I think the emphasis on slaving the Celtic peoples seems a bit odd when you consider that their biggest impact was annexing half of England for some time. You would think that would have given them a far bigger prey than raiding down the low populated rocky islands off western Scotland and setting up town enclaves in Ireland.

The situation with L21 in Scandinavia has always been different in that the variance is much lower than say France. However, I think the emphasis on slaving the Celtic peoples seems a bit odd when you consider that their biggest impact was annexing half of England for some time. You would think that would have given them a far bigger prey than raiding down the low populated rocky islands off western Scotland and setting up town enclaves in Ireland.

Undoubtedly, which is why probably most if not all of the U152 in Scandinavia and much of the U106 must also be products of the Viking Era slave trade, if the L21 is.

The presence of M222 at about 18% of the L21 in Norway is a puzzler, however, if the L21 there predates the Viking Period.

Regarding the Norway data in Busby study: it really deserves a topic on its own, which I intend to start when I have time (I am rather pressed for time at the moment). Thanks again to Authun for pointing it out and determining the sample size. The next question is the area of sampling and the source. Is it country wide or limited to a specific area? Since Jim Wilson is one of the co-authors and has been said to have conducted sampling in Norway, I wonder if he might be the source.

Regarding M222: I don't see how one can put all M222 in Norway down to Viking slavery. It ignores the possibility of emigration from Britain to Norway since the Viking period. It also assumes M222 is specifically a British marker. I think the jury is still out on that issue. Jean M has suggested that it may have originated in the La Tene culture. If so, it may have arrived in Norway in the Bronze Age or other time before the Vikings.

Regarding the Norway data in Busby study: it really deserves a topic on its own, which I intend to start when I have time (I am rather pressed for time at the moment). Thanks again to Authun for pointing it out and determining the sample size. The next question is the area of sampling and the source. Is it country wide or limited to a specific area? Since Jim Wilson is one of the co-authors and has been said to have conducted sampling in Norway, I wonder if he might be the source.

Regarding M222: I don't see how one can put all M222 in Norway down to Viking slavery. It ignores the possibility of emigration from Britain to Norway since the Viking period. It also assumes M222 is specifically a British marker. I think the jury is still out on that issue. Jean M has suggested that it may have originated in the La Tene culture. If so, it may have arrived in Norway in the Bronze Age or other time before the Vikings.

The biggest question mark for me is over whether the variance dating method is correct. I just cant make sense of Europe having been repopulated in the Bronze Age. It just doesnt tally with the archaeological evidence. If the dates are systematically coming out too young then you wonder if this is also true for the dating of M222 etc. If they are a lot older than we think then the whole ball game changes. If M222 is a BC marker then a whole range of possibilities opens up compared to a 400AD date as currently suggested.

Regarding the Norway data in Busby study: it really deserves a topic on its own, which I intend to start when I have time (I am rather pressed for time at the moment). Thanks again to Authun for pointing it out and determining the sample size. The next question is the area of sampling and the source. Is it country wide or limited to a specific area? Since Jim Wilson is one of the co-authors and has been said to have conducted sampling in Norway, I wonder if he might be the source.

Regarding M222: I don't see how one can put all M222 in Norway down to Viking slavery. It ignores the possibility of emigration from Britain to Norway since the Viking period. It also assumes M222 is specifically a British marker. I think the jury is still out on that issue. Jean M has suggested that it may have originated in the La Tene culture. If so, it may have arrived in Norway in the Bronze Age or other time before the Vikings.

The biggest question mark for me is over whether the variance dating method is correct. I just cant make sense of Europe having been repopulated in the Bronze Age. It just doesnt tally with the archaeological evidence. If the dates are systematically coming out too young then you wonder if this is also true for the dating of M222 etc. If they are a lot older than we think then the whole ball game changes. If M222 is a BC marker then a whole range of possibilities opens up compared to a 400AD date as currently suggested.

Authun has mentioned the Shennan and Edinborough study, which I also remember reading a couple of years ago. It showed extreme depopulation at the end of the Neolithic, so it wouldn't have taken all that much for even small groups of incomers to replace most of the y-dna population (and that's the part we're talking about - not the whole population).

I don't think STR variance is off by that much. I think it's probably pretty accurate. Busby is a tricky piece of work and not even a straightforward piece of writing. It has to be sorted through its supplementary pages to be understood and used just 10 STR markers. I don't think it's the final word on the subject. It also strikes me that it may represent a volley from those who have a lot invested (emotionally and in terms of academic reputation) in the old longue duree idea: R1b-in-the-Ice-Age-Refuge, blah, blah, blah.

M222 has been known about for a long time (since at least 2005, if I recall correctly) and has only very rarely been found on the Continent. It's about 18% of Busby's Norwegian L21 sample. Believe me, I DO NOT want to believe that most of the L21 in Norway has to be chalked up to the Viking slave trade, but that M222 figure makes me think it has to be.

Authun has mentioned the Shennan and Edinborough study, which I also remember reading a couple of years ago. It showed extreme depopulation at the end of the Neolithic, so it wouldn't have taken all that much for even small groups of incomers to replace most of the y-dna population (and that's the part we're talking about - not the whole population).

...The presence of M222 at about 18% of the L21 in Norway is a puzzler, however, if the L21 there predates the Viking Period.

What's the % that M222 is of L21 in Ireland? I think it is more than 18%, isn't it?

If we use the slower markers, as I think Tim Janzen and pretty much Mth69 advocate, M222 is close to half the age of L21. Depending on how you age L21 there is plenty of time pre-Viking (900AD or so) for M222 to show up in Norway.

I think another consideration should be that the origin of M222 is not completely nailed down as Ireland. Jean M has proposed it came to Scotland and then to NW Ireland via the La Tene Celts. We know there are a few M222 in Germany so who knows?

If M222 came from Germany across the North Sea to northern Great Britain and then Ireland, some could have diverted to Norway as well but just not have been so prolific there. M222 could have made it to Norway pre-Viking, during the Viking period and post the Viking period as merchants.

For my money, the better diagnostic marker for Ireland is L226+ which has been associated with Dalcassian surnames. I haven't found any L226 outside of the Isles, period and it is very, very much Munster based with some spill-over into the other regions. Of course, maybe these guys were just plain Viking adverse. Isn't Brian Boru a Dalcassian?

Also, L371+ is pretty much Wales/West Britain oriented. L371+ in Norway would a strong indicator.

Both L371 and L226 have strong off-modal STR patterns that I haven't seen in Norway.

...The presence of M222 at about 18% of the L21 in Norway is a puzzler, however, if the L21 there predates the Viking Period.

What's the % that M222 is of L21 in Ireland? I think it is more than 18%, isn't it?

If we use the slower markers, as I think Tim Janzen and pretty much Mth69 advocate, M222 is close to half the age of L21. Depending on how you age L21 there is plenty of time pre-Viking (900AD or so) for M222 to show up in Norway.

I think another consideration should be that the origin of M222 is not completely nailed down as Ireland. Jean M has proposed it came to Scotland and then to NW Ireland via the La Tene Celts. We know there are a few M222 in Germany so who knows?

If M222 came from Germany across the North Sea to northern Great Britain and then Ireland, some could have diverted to Norway as well but just not have been so prolific there. M222 could have made it to Norway pre-Viking, during the Viking period and post the Viking period as merchants.

For my money, the better diagnostic marker for Ireland is L226+ which has been associated with Dalcassian surnames. I haven't found any L226 outside of the Isles, period and it is very, very much Munster based with some spill-over into the other regions. Of course, maybe these guys were just plain Viking adverse. Isn't Brian Boru a Dalcassian?

Also, L371+ is pretty much Wales/West Britain oriented. L371+ in Norway would a strong indicator.

Mike,Moffat and Wilson clearly identify M222 as North West Ireland. They also link it to the Dalriadian signature in the Scottish Isles. The Clan Donald who were a hybrid Viking Dalriadan clan and were Lords of the Isles for several centuries, had extensive exchanges with Norway. That and the Viking slave markets based out of Dublin could explain some of the M222 in Norway.

“As a result of a process coyly termed social selection, scientists have identified an old lineage in Ireland dating from around 400 to 500. Known as M222, it is astonishingly common. No less than 20 per cent of all Irish men carry it! Its distribution is heavily weighted to the north with 40 percent in Ulster, 30 per cent in Connaught and 10 – 15 percent in in Munster and Leinster. No less than a fifth of all Irish men are directly descended from one man who lived 1,500 years ago”.“Given the distribution of the marker and its bias to Ulster and especially to men with the O’Neill and O’Donnell surnames, there exists a clear candidate. The O’Neill kindred dominated Irish history from the fifth to the tenth centuries and their founder was the High King known as Niall Noigiallach”.“Lord Turlough O’Donnell who died in 1423, carried on the family tradition with gusto. He had 14 sons and 59 male grandchildren.”“More than 50,000 Scottish men, most of them with the surname MacDonald or its varients, are the direct decendents of Semerled. The first Lord of the Isles and founder of Clan Donald, he ruled the Hebrides and was King of the Isle of Man”.“Did it (the M222 marker) cross the sea with the war bands of Fergus Mor mac Erc and his ancestors? There is uncompromising evidence that it did. More than 6 percent of all Scottish men carry M222, around 150,000 are direct decendents of Niall, the High King of the Irish. The frequency of the marker is very pronounced on the west with 9 per cent and less in the east with 3 per cent on the axis from Galloway to Shetland. It occurs very often amongst men with ancient Scottish surnames and whose family trees can, in some cases, be traced back over three centuries. Those in Scotland with the M222 marker are not recent immigrants and their high incidence and geographic spread indicate a large scale movement of people – probably mainly from Ulster and probably around AD 500”.

The frequencies of the M222 Y chromosome group are shown across the British Isles using pie charts. Up to 3000 samples were used to create this map.“Other Irish specific markers from the period around AD 500 can be found in Scotland and their presence reinforces a sense of colonization. S168 (M226) is relatively rare and strongly concentrated around the River Shannon where it is now found in Tipperary and Limerick. This was once the territory of the Dalcassian clans, the decendents of the great High King Brian Boru. S169 (L159.2) is most common in Leinster, the lands of the Lagin clans, and it too is found in Scotland, especially amongst men with the surnames Beattie and Ferguson”.“The genetic and political divide between incomers and natives also had cultural facets. The Dalriadans spoke Irish Gaelic, Q-Celtic, while the Picts spoke P-Celtic and it appears that the languages were not mutually intelligible. When St Columba attempted to bring the Word of God to the Picts, it had to be translated”.“A marker has been identified that is essentially unique to Scotland and rarely found elsewhere. It is known as R1b-str47 or R1b-Pict and around 10% of Scottish men carry it. In our towns and villages 250,000 Picts are quietly going about their daily lives. The distribution of the marker broadly matches the Pictish territory and where later incursions such as Dalriada Gaels and the Vikings overlaid it, the numbers are diluted.It is well represented in the east of Scotland above the Forth but much less so in Northern and Western Isles. R1b-Pict is at least 3,000 years old and possibly even older and is a subgroup of S145 (L21)”.

.. Moffat and Wilson clearly identify M222 as North West Ireland. They also link it to the Dalriadian signature in the Scottish Isles. The Clan Donald who were a hybrid Viking Dalriadan clan and were Lords of the Isles for several centuries, had extensive exchanges with Norway. That and the Viking slave markets based out of Dublin could explain some of the M222 in Norway.“As a result of a process coyly termed social selection, scientists have identified an old lineage in Ireland dating from around 400 to 500. Known as M222, it is astonishingly common. No less than 20 per cent of all Irish men carry it! Its distribution is heavily weighted to the north with 40 percent in Ulster, 30 per cent in Connaught and 10 – 15 percent in in Munster and Leinster. No less than a fifth of all Irish men are directly descended from one man who lived 1,500 years ago”.“Given the distribution of the marker and its bias to Ulster and especially to men with the O’Neill and O’Donnell surnames, there exists a clear candidate. The O’Neill kindred dominated Irish history from the fifth to the tenth centuries and their founder was the High King known as Niall Noigiallach”.“Lord Turlough O’Donnell who died in 1423, carried on the family tradition with gusto. He had 14 sons and 59 male grandchildren.”“More than 50,000 Scottish men, most of them with the surname MacDonald or its varients, are the direct decendents of Semerled. The first Lord of the Isles and founder of Clan Donald, he ruled the Hebrides and was King of the Isle of Man”.“Did it (the M222 marker) cross the sea with the war bands of Fergus Mor mac Erc and his ancestors? There is uncompromising evidence that it did. "“A marker has been identified that is essentially unique to Scotland and rarely found elsewhere. It is known as R1b-str47 or R1b-Pict and around 10% of Scottish men carry it. In our towns and villages 250,000 Picts are quietly going about their daily lives. The distribution of the marker broadly matches the Pictish territory...

I have that book, too. I've found there are a lot of R1b-str47 (Scots modal) people who think they are Dal Riada descendants, but if I had to choose I'd go with Moffat and Wilson on this one that Scots Modal may have an ancient Pictish linage. However, I think some Picts made it into Ireland very early on so it is possible for a Pictish lineage to be "Dál Riata-ized" and then to have lea the charge back into Scotland to take it from their old cousins.

In terms of M222, I don't think Moffat and Wilson are specifying it true origin is NW Ireland. If you believe the Irish myth stuff, it should be more to west and central anyway as it is Conor (of a hundred battles) related lineage.

I don't really have an opinion on if the M222 guys were Dál Riata. However, Jean has the proposal that M222 actually came from the continent and I can say that variance for M222 is higher in Great Britain than in Ireland, based on MDKAs that are pre-Industrial era and English sounding surnames.

I know the Dál Riata were supposed to be powerful and all that. Were they good sailors to? We know they were island hoppers.